I read just now that the head of the NRA is recieving a lot more death threats than he usually does.
This is a common problem in the gun business. Those who sell and promote guns are at constant risk of being shot by their clients.
That is why gun shop workers are taught to be alert on the job. They don't like to let you open a box of cartridges when you buy a gun and bullets at the same time.
They are well aware that a portion of their clients are robbers, murderers, and psychos.
They keep loaded guns behind the counter and in the office ready to kill their clients if needed.
Owners of flower shops don't have a client base that goes straight from the store to a theater near you for a slaughter.

Here is an epic Gun Fail video. It reminds me of the Movie Idiocracy, where so many idiots and bums reproduced that it watered down the average IQ.

The government is partly responsible because the self reliance our founding fathers had has been wiped out by big government handouts, loss of morality and of course some in-breeding on the farm...

Serious gun training and age restrictions should be required to own a semi-auto weapon, but please don't ban them for people with IQ's above 110 who can pass a safety course and know how to safely store them.

The requirement to demonstrate current insurance coverage actually bothers you guys? I really don't get it. In MA, there is no requirement to show anything but the license and registration. The name of the insurance company that issued coverage at the time of registration is printed thereon. No separate card required. CT, by contrast requires a separate insurance card.

Despite CT's additional card requirement, each state mandates minimum coverage. And there is no further difference. Merely because a card (or even a declaration page, for that matter) identifies the coverage fails to provide proof of actual coverage at that time simply because one can fail to pay a premium, get cancelled but yet also hold a valid registration.

How does this relate to failed laws? If a fine is levied and not paid, the license and registration can be suspended. Driving without either amounts to mandated arrest in many states. Now the driver faces a pending criminal contempt charge if he fails to pay and/or appear. Most recalcitrant drivers will eventually find themselves unable to drive and posing no risk on the roads because they are locked up for contempt.

Again, if a state decides to create or increase a minimum jail sentence for this behavior, not only are the violators off the street for longer but it will change the behavior of many who would otherwise consider driving around illegally.

The deterrent effect of law is probably seen most clearly with highway speed limits. Lower speed limits consistently see lower actual speeds over time -even if the conditions might appear to warrant a higher speed. The ONLY reason this works is because of the speed limit and associated punishment for violation's deterrent effect.

Dan, I have to ask, do you have any FIRST HAND experience with this stuff? Or are you just quoting stuff? I drive the speed limit on the freeway 99% of the time. I can tell you FIRST HAND, that the speed limit is not obeyed by the majority of the people. I'm passed all the time (sometimes quite rudely) by the majority. I'm actually excited when I actually pass somebody...

As to the insurance part, you are missing the point. Yes, if they don't get insurance and prove it their licenses are suspended. But guess what? They STILL drive!! I know this FIRST HAND by the people I pulled over. It is amazing how people justify what they do. Texting and driving? Sure well it was just this "one time"..... Same thing with no license. They feel the need to go to the store to buy milk or more likely alcohol, they just "do it" the fact that it is illegal barely registers because in their mind they justify it.

And to bring this point back around, gun laws ONLY affects those willing to obey them. The "criminals" really don't give a crap about laws.....

Bard you do remember that no laws are proposed at all about to ban private gun ownership?
That is the central lie being told nonstop by the NRA to avoid gun registrations and oher sensible controls that they fear might reduce sales of their products.
I have no objection to the weapons dealers advertising and promoting their products.
When they purchased the NRA to lie to us and brainwash the American people into chanting you are taking my guns away every time gun control is mentioned- I have a problem with that.

My experience isn't the same as yours. I've not served on any police force but I've been an officer of the court in two states, third pending and three federal jurisdictions. My practice isn't criminal law and I've only made a single appearance on behalf of a defendant.

Yet, I've spend hundreds of hours waiting in courtrooms while defendants parade for arraignment and have practiced with plenty of crim defense attorneys.

To be clear, my example simply showed that deterrence can work. People may still speed, but they don't drive at the same speed as before the limit was dropped. The degree of crime and potential of innocent loss is thus reduced.

You are correct that not all law changes reduce the targeted behavior but there is a logical tipping point where a punishment becomes draconian enough that it affects changes in behavior. Drunk driving laws certainly had this effect.

Behavior related to firearm possession comes with such dramatic risk of loss that society applies very severe penalties for proven violations. We also have adopted laws to change with the times. For example, there are many laws restricting how or when one can use a firearm -even when it comes to defending house and home. A stark example of this are the so-called spring gun laws that criminalize auto-fire weapons even when the intended use is honestly intended self-protection.

Creating new laws or increasing the penalties of existing laws ought to be reasonably tailored to address the concern. Laws of general applicability are not required to be so narrowly tailored as only to assure no effects other than the intended goal.

This is the crux of the NRA's argument: "Gun control laws affect far more than reducing gun violence and, therefore, more gun control laws are normatively wrong." Yet, as I discussed, a law of general applicability (one that applies to everyone and doesn't single out a protected class does not need to be without serious side-effects or unintended consequences. See, e.g., Oregon vs. Smith. If a gun law that bans a certain weapon is written without a so-called grandfather clause, the law will likely cause serious concerns about its side-effects but will not fail for that reason.

We don't need to go 'round further about driving laws. I only brought that up for the limited purpose I discussed and to transition back to a direct discussion of how invalid the NRA arguments really are. It's simply a shame that a very important topic is diminished by the best known organization that claims to speak for the 2nd Amendment. The NRA's logic is flawed and its actions are hypocritical to its assertions._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

In my complicated life I have had contact with more than one criminal.
They care a lot about this issue. More than one mob guy is in jail for nothing at all except the gun they were carrying illegally.
It is not easy to be a gun toting Mafia wannabe in a society that restricts guns in any way.
I went to high school in the Mob neighborhood in Kansas City.
I have had criminals I have known since high school tell me with a big smile that they are strong NRA supporters.
They had no interest at all in assault rifles. They strongly support concealed carry.
And no background checks at gun shows.

Here is an epic Gun Fail video. It reminds me of the Movie Idiocracy, where so many idiots and bums reproduced that it watered down the average IQ.

The government is partly responsible because the self reliance our founding fathers had has been wiped out by big government handouts, loss of morality and of course some in-breeding on the farm...

Serious gun training and age restrictions should be required to own a semi-auto weapon, but please don't ban them for people with IQ's above 110 who can pass a safety course and know how to safely store them.

Thanks for the laugh. Loved the one of the guy's pants falling down. I can relate to the ones with the bruised shoulders, made the same mistake in high school.

Certainly 230 years ago, laws of Darwin would eliminate many of those folks. Perhaps the reason our founding fathers didn't see the need for gun control. Something's gone wrong here for sure.

Very good poem Mac. However, it is a false God that Pirates have used for thousands of years to make war.

And KC, the revolver/pistol IS the weapon of choice in murder. Stats bear that out. In a crowded setting, the most lethal would be a sawed off tactical shotgun followed by the semi-auto hand gun. What I don't like is the media marching in lock step with the prez on this "assault rifle" ban. Assault rifles account for less than 2.5% of murders.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum